Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well we already have retirement not tied to employers so why not healthcare as well.
But I'll tell you, those 20 somethings today are going to be in pretty bad shape come 40-50 years from now.
But this is what many seem to want. They want their own individual plans.
I consider myself lucky..pension and retiree healthcare from my company.
I don't know how young adults today are going to fare all on their own in the future.
There is health insurance if you want to buy it regardless if you are employed or not.... What you really want to say is that you should have health insurance and not have to pay it...
There is health insurance if you want to buy it regardless if you are employed or not.... What you really want to say is that you should have health insurance and not have to pay it...
That's what it amounts to. They don't want to pay premiums and they don't want to pay any out of pocket expense money. They want practically free healthcare.
And Obamacare tacked on lots of stealth costs to employers who are now reacting to those increased costs by chopping hours, dropping plans and dropping coverage for certain individuals.
This will be a growing trend because of cost in a dead man walking economy and employers who do not want to cover gay marriage couples because of their convictions. I saw this a mile away since I understand action -re action, it is that simple.
Yes. The spouse insurance tax is part of his plan.
I was referring to Health Insurers dropping spouses, which is the topic of this thread. 10% of insurers dropping the spousal option is a reaction to ACA, not mandated by the Affordable Care Act.
Obamacare raised the price of spousal care on the employer from $1 to $65 per spouse.
Did you not know that ?
I think that is the greatest arguement for monogamy.
$1 to $2 "per life"...[whatever that means] up to $65.
Please explain how this passage caused 10% of insurers to not offer the spousal option. How much more would this add to your insurance? or any of your co-workers? Is your company's Health insurer following the 10%'s example?
I was refering to Health Insurers dropping spouses, which is the topic of this thread. 10% of insurers dropping the spousal option is a reaction to ACA, not mandated by the Affordable Care Act.
There is a difference.
And I'd wager that if Obamacare didn't up the price for spousal coverage from $1 to $65 there wouldn't be as many companies dropping spousal coverage.
Had nothing to do with any "mandate". It's about the stealth increase on employers.
so since the spousal is not mandated in Obamacare, then when Health insurer drops spouses, that's Obama's fault?
If the Insurance companies would have keep the spousal option, would that be a good outcome of obamacare?
There is no good outcome of obamacare. Look at it from every which way. There's nothing good about it. Dems might have known that, had they bothered to read the bill before they voted for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HollandUSA
We need single payer. Thats what President Obama wanted all alone. ACA is compromise because of Republicans.
See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"ACA is compromise because of Republicans."
WOW! Some people are just clueless.
Please explain how the repubs figure into this when not ONE repub voted for it.
I think you should look up the word "compromise" if you are going to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade
This will be a growing trend because of cost in a dead man walking economy and employers who do not want to cover gay marriage couples because of their convictions. I saw this a mile away since I understand action -re action, it is that simple.
They'll have to, or none will, once the Supreme Court rules on the issue of same sex marriage (legal in some states) not being recognized in terms of benefits accorded to them that are accorded to married heterosexual couples. The law will have to apply equally to all once the current (traditional) definition of marriage is struck down.
If there's a law that requires employers to provide health insurance coverage, I'm not aware of it. Employers certainly do not have to extend coverage to spouse and family. Insurance is a benefit that was instituted to compete for qualified workers when times were good. We've come to believe that it's a right.
I think that is the greatest arguement for monogamy.
$1 to $2 "per life"...[whatever that means] up to $65.
Please explain how this passage caused 10% of insurers to not offer the spousal option. How much more would this add to your insurance? or any of your co-workers? Is your company's Health insurer following the 10%'s example?
Companies are not flush, especially the small ones.
It's the small companies doing this, not your GE, IBM or Microsoft. They will cut somewhere else to pay that $65.
I retired from a big multi-national company and when I left there were almost no benefits left for employees. No more pension, no fully paid employee healthcare, not even for single folks, no more tuition refund or paying to futher your education, no more travel, etc. NOTHING.
Small companies don't have all those benefits they can cut back to absorb increases in other areas.
Not every company in America is flush with money like GE or Walmart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
